Why Gaming L2s Must Prioritize Throughput Over Decentralization Dogma

Throughput is the primary constraint for gaming. A single popular game requires thousands of transactions per second (TPS) for seamless gameplay, a demand that Ethereum L1 or overly decentralized L2s cannot meet. The user experience of latency and high fees kills engagement before decentralization becomes relevant.

Decentralization is a secondary optimization. The security model for a gaming chain is not the same as for DeFi. Players prioritize fast, cheap, and reliable state updates over the Byzantine fault tolerance of a globally distributed validator set. The security budget comes from the base layer, not the execution layer's consensus.

The market has already decided. Chains like Immutable zkEVM and Ronin demonstrate the model: they optimize for ultra-high throughput using centralized sequencers and prove state to Ethereum. Their success, measured in daily active users and transaction volume, validates the throughput-first thesis over ideological purity.

Throughput is non-negotiable. A game stuttering at 15 TPS loses players instantly. The decentralization trilemma forces a choice; for gaming, latency and cost dominate finality.

Decentralization is a spectrum. A network secured by Ethereum via optimistic or zk-rollups (like Arbitrum Nova or Immutable zkEVM) provides sufficient security without the performance tax of full L1 decentralization.

The market validates this. Top gaming chains like Solana and Polygon prioritize monolithic execution and low fees. Their adoption proves that for users, smooth experience beats ideological purity.

Evidence: Arbitrum processes over 2 million daily transactions, dwarfing Ethereum L1, by optimizing for execution speed while inheriting security.

Sequencer centralization is a feature for gaming L2s, not a bug. A single, high-performance sequencer minimizes block production latency, which is critical for real-time game state updates. Decentralizing this role with a PoS consensus like Polygon introduces unacceptable delays for player actions.

Data Availability (DA) must be cheap and fast, not maximally secure. Using Ethereum calldata for DA creates a cost and latency bottleneck. Gaming chains like Xai and Immutable use validiums with Celestia or EigenDA, slashing costs by 100x and enabling sub-second state commitments.

Finality is the only non-negotiable decentralization. While the sequencer can be centralized, state finality must be secured by Ethereum. This hybrid model, used by Arbitrum Nova, provides the security anchor while the execution layer optimizes for pure speed.

Evidence: Immutable zkEVM processes over 9,000 transactions per second (TPS) with sub-2 second finality. This is only possible by decoupling high-throughput execution from decentralized settlement, a trade-off no competitive game can ignore.

Decentralization is a tax on latency and throughput. Every consensus round and validator signature adds milliseconds that break real-time gameplay. For gaming, finality speed is the primary UX metric, not validator count.

The dogma fails at scale. A network with 10,000 validators, like a hypothetical Ethereum L1 for games, cannot process the micro-transactions of a million concurrent players. Sequencer centralization is a feature, not a bug, for achieving sub-second finality.

Compare the trade-offs. Arbitrum Nitro and zkSync Era prioritize a single, high-performance sequencer, enabling ~4k TPS. This model, akin to Solana's single-leader architecture, delivers the deterministic performance games require.

Evidence: The leading gaming chain, Immutable zkEVM, uses a centralized sequencer. Its partnership with Polygon focuses on scaling proofs, not decentralizing block production, because player retention depends on frame rate, not Nakamoto Coefficient.